Descartes, Locke, Leibniz and Kant surely deserved on too, as do Plato and Aristotle.

The problem, then, is finding a suitable candidate after the middle of the 19th century. Russell did win one, as merited, but not for his intellectual contributions. — Manuel

I agree those philosophers were pivotal to the development of modern philosophy. But then what about Spinoza, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Peirce, James, Dewey and others I haven't mentioned.

Who said it was a jab at Janus ? Although that does have a nice alliterative ring to it. — Tom Storm

It has other associations if you combine it with Bartrick's cute nickname for me: "Hugh Janus".

Derrida was also influential and Lacan. Not a good metric.



Oops. I misunderstood, my bad.

Derrida was also influential and Lacan. Not a good metric. — Manuel

Derrida was a good philosopher. Again, I don't agree with some of his arguments, but his influence is valid.

I agree those philosophers were pivotal to the development of modern philosophy. But then what about Spinoza, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Peirce, James, Dewey and others I haven't mentioned. — Janus

These awards should be given relative to the time some of these figures lived in. Spinoza's arguments are somewhat difficult to re-articulate now, though it can be done.

Hegel.... I think won several awards in his time. But, let me avoid talking about him.

As for the others, sure. There are good arguments for the pragmatists, I think. The others are more difficult to pin down for an award. Most of these are debatable, or will find partisans.

Bartrick's — Janus

Hah. Well, with someone like him, one does not debate. One merely bows in astonishment...

Derrida was a good philosopher. Again, I don't agree with some of his arguments, but his influence is valid. — Jackson

Influence is difficult to argue with, but the effects of influence can be good or bad. I don't think he's good at all, but others here swear by him.

Influence is difficult to argue with, but the effects of influence can be good or bad. I don't think he's good at all, but others here swear by him. — Manuel

Feel free not to respond if you so choose, but what idea of Derrida do you think exerts bad influence?

It's not one specific idea, although one could mention differance or hauntology or whatever else he argued, it's several factors.

I won't go into details here, for one thing, people do find him useful and two, I have not read too much of him, though a bit from his followers. The thing is, if I'm not liking or finding persuasive what I'm reading, why bother going on?

There are plenty of others to read.

In short, willfully obscure writing, no regard for proper arguments, constantly saying people misunderstand him, then proceed to make fun of others, etc.

This has not been good for philosophy, in my opinion. For literature, paradoxically, the results are not too bad.

It's not one specific idea, although one could mention differance or hauntology or whatever else he argued, it's several factors.

I won't go into details here, for one thing, people do find him useful and two, I have not read too much of him, though a bit from his followers. The thing is, if I'm not liking or finding persuasive what I'm reading, why bother going on?

There are plenty of others to read.

In short, willfully obscure writing, no regard for proper arguments, constantly saying people misunderstand him, then proceed to make fun of others, etc.

This has not been good for philosophy, in my opinion. For literature, paradoxically, the results are not too bad. — Manuel

Thanks for the reply. I have read a lot of Derrida and think his first three books or so were good, after that he was pretty redundant. He reminded me of Scholastic writing, going on and on about stuff no one cares about.

But his essay, "Differance," is very good and worthwhile.

Hah. Well, with someone like him, one does not debate. — Manuel

I've had several tries at it, but it doesn't work.

How to do philosophy?

By using our brains (truth) & hearts (good) [Xin (heart-mind)]. Wisdom (sophia) is knowing what is true (verum) and what is good (bonum).

How to do philosophy?

By using our brains (truth) & hearts (good) [Xin (heart-mind)]. Wisdom (sophia) is knowing what is true (verum) and what is good (bonum). — Agent Smith

Abstinence :blush:

Abstinence — Merkwurdichliebe

Avoid beauty (pulchrum), you hairy beast! Alack, it's too late for me! I've already tasted flesh!

$\uparrow$ My attempted at a joke!

Avoid beauty (pulchrum), you hairy beast! Alack, it's too late for me! I've already tasted flesh!

↑ My attempted at a joke! — Agent Smith

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Made me laugh

Made me laugh — Merkwurdichliebe

You're too kind, monsieur, too kind! :up:

In my experience, an optimal means of "doing philosophy" is Gnosis; which appears to be a common thread running throughout much of the original doctrines upon which much of everyday life is based.

In my experience, an optimal means of "doing philosophy" is Gnosis — Bret Bernhoft

How does one do Gnosis and can you provide an example of it in action?

How does one do Gnosis and can you provide an example of it in action? — Tom Storm

Good question. I was wondering exactly the same.

which appears to be a common thread — Bret Bernhoft

I guess the big issue here is to specify where this "common thread" comes from and why it is the origin of the doctrines

There are also questioning sorts of interests that are hard even to formulate as simple questions. For instance, language seems to work, but what it even works at is not clear, what it even does is confusing. And there are ways of conceiving of language that suggest it cannot possibly work at whatever it's doing, which we still don't know. I don't think I'm ever going to shake my fascination with that little knot. — Srap Tasmaner

Writing in everyday, imprecise English, I advance one proposed answer to what language works at and does. Entertainment.

Lots of folks have experienced pleasure when imbibing a narrative that arouses & holds their interest with personal truths, dazzles their imagination with vibrant revelations, expels their breath with uncanny yet logical surprises and elevates their understanding with useful information.

I don't know if language has its own intentions apart from its impacts via application, but I trust many will grant the above as true description of their experience of good storytelling.

axiomatized logic — Srap Tasmaner

The juxtaposition of the above two words is an example of my experience of a bit of language as entertainment.

Firstly, how do you pronounce the participle? Secondly, is it a neo-logism of the writer? Thirdly, is the two-word phrase paradoxical?

As to the thirdly, how do you arbitrarily make inferential statements?

How does one do Gnosis and can you provide an example of it in action? — Tom Storm

I have an example that comes from literature. It's a short story that places you into the ballpark of gnosis.

I have one distillation of the technique of gnosis that might be enlightening. Literature that conveys gnosis to the reader oftentimes makes use of metaphor in a very specific way. Via metaphor, it elaborates a link between the everyday world & the uncanny dimension of creation. The result is a narrative ambiguity that imparts awareness of duality of being of existing things.

The effect is environmental as the reader is partially transported out of the everyday world into a complex position with one foot on solid ground & the other foot landed within a dreamscape. Once inside the realm of duality, created things assume a high vibrational energy that perplexes the whereness of reality.

One genre label for this type of dual narrative is magical realism.

Our recently concluded Short Story Competition 3 includes such a story.

Dream of the Flood, by Tobias. Use the link below.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13187/dream-of-the-flood-by-tobias

A fortnight later - my apologies, I have intended to get back to this post, but I kept rethinking my response. Even now I'm still puzzling.

It's easy to slip from Wittgenstein's demonstration that metaphysical statements are senseless to Ayer's contention that they are nonsense. Yes, philosophy is hard.

But if the plumbing is working then we would understand it.

RE: How to Do Philosophy
SUBTOPIC: Fundamentals
※→ Banno, et al,

I am wondering if the original question is flawed in some way? Let us suppose we examine a set of alternatives:

• ◈ Let us suppose, just for a moment, that the entity does NOT "Do Philosophy." (It is not an exercise that you do.)
  
• ◈ Let us suppose that "Philosophy" is something on the order of a tool. (It is a type of Test and Measurement Equipment.)

Philosophy is only as hard as the question under examination.

https://www.usmessageboard.com/attachments/1611604183365-png.448413/
Most Respectfully,
R
Saturday, July 22, 2022

Describe three.
— baker

Sally, Matthew, Mark, Rowena, Tony - there's five people I know well who live outside of a dog-eat-dog worldview. I know a few people who live in the nastier world you describe, but most do not. Unless you take any interaction with the contemporary world as an example of your point. — Tom Storm

Listing names isn't a description.

Is there evidence that philosophy is of benefit to individuals and how would that be demonstrated?

That's like asking whether breathing is of benefit to individuals and how would that be demonstrated.

So my question isn't about evoking a variation of Plato's cave. My question is can you (or anyone) demonstrate that philosophy is of benefit? What would it even look like for philosophy to be of use - would we see equality/world peace/environmental healing?

It seems your obsession with your status as non-philosopher is getting in the way of thinking clearly.

I think this example is a good one and this happened to us in our once rural area too twenty years ago. The quality and experience of life changes for the worse, but it's largely an aesthetic experience.

"Largely an aesthetic experience".

I don't feel like looking up images of concentration camp prisoners and such. "Largely an aesthetic experience".

That's like asking whether breathing is of benefit to individuals and how would that be demonstrated. — baker

No it's not. Breathing is completely unavoidable. Philosophy is avoidable. Odd comparison.

Listing names isn't a description. — baker

I would have thought that this is my point - such a description is not possible. You can't readily describe people who have chosen not to behave in the manner you have suggested without going into lengthy biography.

It seems your obsession with your status as non-philosopher is getting in the way of thinking clearly. — baker

'Obsession' no - 'status' yes. Am I not thinking clearly? I never said I thought clearly.

I don't feel like looking up images of concentration camp prisoners and such. "Largely an aesthetic experience". — baker

Is this a non sequitur? Why mention concentration camps?

So it sounds like you won't engage with my question, but opt to dismiss it instead as poor thinking. Ok.

Just noticed this, Rocco. Someone who does not do philosophy... sure, there are plenty of them. My suspicion is that they live parasitically off the philosophical considerations of others...

For my part, once I've had my morning coffee, and am confident in the advent of breakfast, a bit of philosophical musing comes next - often at the expense of time spent on what I ought be doing.

I will agree with you if your contention is that doing philosophy well consists in developing and using certain tools for sorting out conceptual difficulties.

(There's a "reply" button a the bottom of each post that will let folk know when you answer a post. There is also a "picture" button in the toolbar for adding graphics rather than linking to them.)

That's like asking whether breathing is of benefit to individuals and how would that be demonstrated.
— baker

No it's not. Breathing is completely unavoidable. Philosophy is avoidable. Odd comparison. — Tom Storm

Not at all. What is completely avoidable is formal study of philosophy. One can perfectly well avoid enrolling in a college program the topic of which is philosophy. One can also perfectly well avoid reading any books by or about people that are popularily known as "philosophers".

But what one cannot avoid is reflecting on the nature of things, on what constitutes truth, goodness, how it is that one knows something, etc. -- all of which are standard topics in philosophy.

The difference between philosophers and people who aren't that (or who make a point of claiming not to be philosophers) is in how systematically and how in accordance with the philosophical tradition they reflect on those topics.

Listing names isn't a description.
— baker

I would have thought that this is my point - such a description is not possible. You can't readily describe people who have chosen not to behave in the manner you have suggested without going into lengthy biography.

One of the assumptions in critical thinking is that it is possible to rationally, with arguments, summarize a person's stance on any given topic.

Am I not thinking clearly? I never said I thought clearly.

Oh, come on.

I don't feel like looking up images of concentration camp prisoners and such. "Largely an aesthetic experience".
— baker

Is this a non sequitur? Why mention concentration camps?

We were talking about the decrease of life quality in areas that are undergoing or have undergone suburbanization or gentrification. To classify this decrease merely as "largely an aesthetic experience" takes away the relevance of this decrease.

So it sounds like you won't engage with my question, but opt to dismiss it instead as poor thinking. Ok.

I've been trying to show you why your question is wrong, and why your persistent declarations of "not being a philosopher" are misguided.

The difference between philosophers and people who aren't that (or who make a point of claiming not to be philosophers) is in how systematically and how in accordance with the philosophical tradition they reflect on the big topics. — baker

Which in my view is a difference so big you could park a planet on it. :smile: I think making a distinction between understanding philosophy and having an unexamined opinion is of critical importance. Isn't a role of philosophy to provide better alternatives to the fallacies and inadequacies of common sense and enculturation?

To classify this decrease merely as "largely an aesthetic experience" takes away the relevance of this decrease. — baker

Who said merely? Aesthetic experiences are serious matters. It's the first thing that strikes me when I see land taken over by lots of identical, ugly houses, not to mention all the garish signage. But we also need more housing (here), so the trade off between habitat and housing for humans is a complex matter.

I've been trying to show you why your question is wrong, and why your persistent declarations of "not being a philosopher" are misguided. — baker

To denigrate a question by saying it isn't legitimate may be a way of avoiding its answer. I think the question -

Is there evidence that philosophy is of benefit to individuals and how would that be demonstrated? — Tom Storm

- is a salient one. Obviously its a large and unwieldly subject and it would benefit from some clarifications.

One of the assumptions in critical thinking is that it is possible to rationally, with arguments, summarize a person's stance on any given topic. — baker

This is not an opportunity for a lecture on critical thinking. You made an assertion which of itself did not present an argument or conspicuously engage with rationality -

To be "ordinary", one needs to live in a very small world, have a small mind, have a dog-eat-dog heart. Many people live this way, and they seem to do just fine. — baker

I made the point that I know many ordinary people who do not have a small mind and a dog-eat-dog heart. The view presented here of ordinary people seems eccentric, pejorative. That was my response.

In other words, many of the ordinary people I have known treat others with respect, do not chase money or power, read books, explore ideas, donate their time and money to charitable causes and generally do good when they can.

To denigrate a question by saying it isn't legitimate may be a way of avoiding its answer. — Tom Storm

This is a philosophy forum, not the watercooler.

(Resurrecting an old thread)

It needs to be said that doing philosophy is extraordinarily hard. Almost anyone can notice the smell, but fixing the leak requires some unusual skills and background. — Banno

Yes, but isn't there a third option? Isn't it possible that someone's nose gets to be a bit too acute and they start noticing smells that are perfectly normal, and then drawing the false conclusion that the plumbing system needs to be overhauled? This is how most people view philosophers, and it isn't always implausible.

But if the plumbing is working then we would understand it. — Banno

I'm not so sure. I think was saying that most of the things that work are things we don't understand, and that seems right. Epistemology looms large in modern philosophy, but perhaps this is an aberration.

"It's quantum" has much the same utility as "God did it". — Banno

:100: :smirk: